Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Guitars' started by axe4me, Jul 25, 2021.
Try it for yourself....
As for what Gibson should make...something nice that they haven't done before...it probably already has been done, as a limited edition.
I'd like for every one of their models to be offered at four levels of trim. Studio, Standard, Custom, and a fourth level, call it Elite or Supreme.
These would be mostly models you are already familiar with. But some...I envision an SG with a carved bookmatched premium grade flamed or quilted maple top with full binding, body, neck, and headstock. I envision an ES-335 type guitar at the same trim level. And the same goes for the other models such as the Explorer and Flying V.
A Flying V Custom with LP Custom style multi-layer binding and an ebony fingerboard would be pretty epic. I think it's be a fantastic look in black. At the Elite level, add the fancy maple top and transparent finish.
I like the Wild Jimmy model
remember, they are "be authentic"...
They threaten anyone that tries to copy their trademark ™ shapes, etc., so, if they do anything that resembles anything else done before, they are treading on a breach of their be authentic mantra...
even though, some of their designs are centuries old...
Remember the Parker Fly? Some people do...barely. Steinberger? They're footnotes in history.
Musical instruments don't necessarily NEED an injection of technology. I'd imagine most Gibson Robot guitars have had their Robot tuners removed by now. While there will be those who WANT a MIDI pickup system on their guitar, for most players the guitar had matured before 1957. The only two "high tech" developments that have retained a degree of popularity in the 30-plus years since their invention have been EMG pickups and Floyd Rose tremolos.
Right now, Fender shows not less than 61 different right handed Stratocaster electric guitar types on their website. And aside from a few having a pickup selection other than three strat type singlecoils, to me they all look pretty much like the same variations on the same theme.
the Steinbergers are still around - owned by.... Gibson, I believe...
Or, you get the guys like Zakk Wilde, who does the same basic shape, but makes the points crooked & nobody's buying...
There will be technological advances, for instance, all the different pickup windings, PC boards. A couple years back, Fender had drop in chips, that would make the Strat have a totally different pickup model sound. Doesn't seem like they went anywhere, as I don't see them in the current line-up.
I just looked, couldn't even find anything close...
There's been guitars w/ drop in pickup bays. The rail guitar, where you can slide the pickup anywhere between the bridge & neck.
Guitars w/ 30+ frets...
Who buys/uses them?
When they try to people bitch about it. When they don't, other people bitch about it. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
And aren't Fender, Gretsch, Rickenbacker, etc. also selling the past? Why single out Gibson?
same w/ everything...
a band releases a new single:
"BOO! they sound too much like themselves!"
"BOO! they sound nothing like themselves!"
It seems like, there's always a loud crowd, that dis's everything that comes out. I think every Marshall that's come out, since the 1st JCM900 has been met w/ negative critical review, no matter how good.
Then there's the:
"it costs too much!"
then they release a cheaper product:
"this thing is cheap!"
rah, rah, rah!
I can't help but think that with all the knowledge that is out there now Gibson ought to be making the most unbelievable sounding and playing guitars that the universe has ever seen but lets face it they're not. Prices they charge every single component ought to be at the same level as the vaunted 50s guitars - in other words you own a 58 59 or 60 Gibson you'd be an absolute dimwit to change any part - not just because of the stupid prices people will pay but because nothing you can buy these days sounds better.
As it is the first thing people do with new Gibsons is swap out the electronics. Certainly in my Gibson there is now absolutely nothing left but the wood. I've changed every piece of hardware and electronics.
This thread is really new...
Always the same old attacks on Gibson:
1. Why do they keep releasing all these new models?
2. Why don't they stick with their heritage and just make Les Pauls like they used to?
Haters gotta hate, every time they innovate. But on the other hand, rightly so. No one asked for those stupid robot tuners, wider fretboards and brass nuts (or whatever), Les Paul Standards for $3,500, ad nauseum...
As for more realistic modernization? WTH does anyone expect, another Les Paul, Flying V or Explorer? Not gonna happen - not with Gibson, not with Fender, Martin or even Marshall. Just like all the good songs have been written, all the good guitars have been designed.
What do you want from us? Have you come here to torment us before the appointed time?
I'm not sure that ALL the good guitars have already been designed, but guitars that have been continuously popular and sell well 50 years after their introduction must surely be a basically good design. A good Les Paul, or a good Strat, is as comfortable a shape and as easy to play (or better) today as it was 50 years ago. They're guitars made for human bodies and human hands and human minds and they fit us well. Why wouldn't they continue to be popular? They're ergonomically solid designs. That tends to contribute to longevity of the design in the marketplace.
There are only so many ways to make a single cutaway guitar shape and make it look like a unique model and also retain what the average person considers to be an aesthetically appealing shape and proportions. Beyond that is the territory of the oddball models, which rarely have the appeal to be produced in large numbers.
Speaking as someone who's made more guitars than most people, I can tell you that the biggest challenge a luthier faces today is to come up with his own body shape that's attractive, comfortable, distinctive, and not close to well established and popular guitars already in the market. I have not yet entirely succeeded. I alter existing shapes, but not by an awful lot. The idea of smashing a bug on a sheet of paper, photographically enlarging it, and using that shape as the basis of a new guitar body shape has absolutely no appeal to ME. But somebody out there can't wait to build it! And it'll be the one nobody wants to buy.
Gibson should focus on it's core models, these are what sells. It's nice that they try new ideas it's how you feel out the market but at the end of the day guitar buyers have made it clear they want Gibson's to be archaic.
That's kind of the point. That's why people who like Gibsons like Gibsons. There is, and will always be, a market for that kind of instrument. Granted, they go a bit overboard with hyper exclusive, limited guitars that cost as much as a nice used car, but their bread and butter is stuff like the Les Paul in its various flavors, the SG in its various flavors, the Explorer and V, and the ES series. Not everything has to change and evolve, especially if there is still a demand for traditional things. If you want a cutting edge guitar then go buy an Ibanez.
Gibson doesn’t evolve, they litigate.